JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. As the appeal and cross objection arise out of the same award, they have been disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants were the petitioners in O.P (MV) No. 786/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Santhosh Kumar (deceased) – the husband of the first appellant and the father of the appellants 2 to 4. It was their case that, on 22.06.2008, while the deceased was travelling with the appellants 1 and 2 from Aluva to Palakkad in their car bearing registration No. KL 9/H 4982, a bus bearing registration No. KL-8/W 5650, driven by the first respondent in a negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the car of the deceased. Even though the deceased was rushed to the Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences, Kannadi, he lost his life. The deceased was employed as Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology Department, Government of Kerala and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.29,265/-. The bus was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The appellants were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.29,76,838/-from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.29,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent did not contest the proceeding and was set ex-parte.

4. The second respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the bus was owned by him. However, the second respondent contended that as the bus was insured with the third respondent, it was the third respondent who was to indemnify his liability, if

5. The third respondent had filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred while the deceased was attempting to over take another car. In order to avoid a collision, the first respondent swerved the vehicle to the right side. Therefore, at any rate, the deceased was guilty for contributory negligence. Also, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the appellants had not impleaded the owner, driver and the insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident.

6. The appellants had produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A9 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analyzing the pleadings and materials on record, adopted the split multiplier method and fixed the income of the deceased for a period of one year at Rs.29,265/-per month as per Exhibit A8 salary certificate, and, thereafter, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-per month and adopted the multiplier of ‘11’. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the appellants to recover from the third respondent an amount of Rs.7,46,000/-with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred the appeal and aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the third respondent-insurer has preferred the cross objection. The third respondent has also challenged the order in I.A. No. 5258/2011, which was filed to review the award.

9. Heard; Sri. D.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent /insurer.

10. The point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

Negligence and liability

11. Exhibit A3 final report filed by the Kuzhalmandam Police in Crime No. 251/2008 substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. Indisputably, the second respondent was the owner and the t